Xenophanes in The Herculaneum Papyri. PR PDF

Xenophanes in the Herculaneum Papyri
Praesocratica Herculanensia IV*
Christian Vassallo (Rome)
Abstract: This paper examines the Herculanean texts where Xenophanes, or a more or less explicit
reference to his thought, appears. Some important testimonia in the corpus of Philodemus’ works
stand out: three fragments of P.Herc. 327, a roll that has been assigned to the Survey of
Philosophers; fr. 12 of P.Herc. 1428, a passage of On Piety; fr. 23 of P.Herc. 207, belonging to
book 4 of the work On Poems; fr. 16 of P.Herc. 1015, containing one of the books of the multi-
volume treatise On Rhetoric.
Keywords: cosmology, Eleatism, Xenophanes, Herculaneum papyri, Presocratics, theology
The only paper so far on Epicureanism and Eleatism including a systematic analy-
sis of the relevant evidence from Herculaneum was published by the papyrologist
Mario Capasso in 1985.1 Two years later, this article was reprinted together with a
similar survey by the same scholar on Heraclitus’ philosophy and Epicureanism,
presented during the first Symposium Heracliteum of 1981.2 Unfortunately, the
presence of Xenophanes in the Herculaneum papyri was not taken into account in
this essay. Capasso justified this omission by referring to the ever-increasing
tendency of modern critics to detach the figure of Xenophanes from the so-called
‘Eleatic school’.3 Leaving the question of the Eleatism of Xenophanes out of
_________
* I am very grateful to W. Benjamin Henry, for kindly revising the English version of my
manuscript, and to Georg Wöhrle and Benedikt Strobel, for inviting me to discuss a part of this
paper during my lecture: Der Beitrag der herculanensischen Papyri zur vorsokratischen Theolo-
gie: die Beispiele des Xenophanes und Parmenides in P.Herc. 1428 (University of Trier, 23 Octo-
ber 2013).
1 Capasso (1985).
2 Capasso (1983).
3 Capasso (1987) 111, n. 28, who refers to the status quaestionis of Giovanni Reale in Zeller/
Mondolfo (1967) 162–164 n.; a critical and bibliographical update on the place of Xenophanes in
the history of Presocratic philosophy can be found now in the first volume of Überweg’s hand-
book, devoted to Frühgriechische Philosophie. The chapter on Xenophanes is written by Schirren
(2013). Xenophanes is here considered separately, before the section devoted to Pythagoras, and
not as part of the Eleatic triad Parmenides-Zeno-Melissus. Although Schirren’s work represents a
good reference point, it does not pay adequate attention to the Herculanean witnesses.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 16.03.15 11:25
46 Archiv für Papyrusforschung 60/1, 2014
consideration,4 in the present paper I will deal with the problem of the (certain or
probable) references to this Presocratic in the Herculaneum papyri. Even if the
pieces of evidence at issue do not amount to much, their importance for the
history of philosophy requires them to be taken seriously by future editors of
Xenophanes’ testimonia.
The first piece of evidence to be considered is fr. 2 Crönert of P.Herc. 327.
Wilhelm Crönert was the first scholar to assign the fragments of this roll to the
Survey of Philosophers (Ϲύνταξιϲ τῶν φιλοϲόφων) of Philodemus, and in parti-
cular to the book of that wide-ranging work of history of philosophy partially
devoted to the Eleatic and Abderite schools.5 As is well-known, from Alfred Körte
to Tiziano Dorandi, the bold supplements of Crönert have been much criticized.
But in spite of that, in the light of modern studies, palaeographical elements do
support the attribution of P.Herc. 327 to Philodemus’ Ϲύνταξιϲ.6 Fr. 2 Crönert is
one of the three fragments of this papyrus (frr. 1–3 Crönert) of which we have lost
the original manuscript. Its evidence is represented today only by the Neapolitan
(N) and Oxonian (O) apographs. In this particular case, only N fr. 3 corresponds to
fr. 2 Crönert.7 The diplomatic transcription of the disegno allows us to identify the
name of Xenophanes at l. 3 with some degree of confidence.
P.Herc. 327, N fr. 3: Diplomatic transcription

- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -]τοϲαυτ [- - - 1 τ [ asc. sicut α, λ, δ
- - -]ιναιϲφαι[- - -
- - -]ενοφανουϲ[- - -
4 - - -]φανηϲδεπ[- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
On the grounds of this scant evidence, Crönert thought he could restore the
following text:
Philod., [hist. philos.], P.Herc. 327, fr. 2 Crönert
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
τὰ µὲν τοῦ βίου] τοϲαῦτα· «(several lines missing) so, these [are the
πρῶτοϲ δὲ τὴν γῆν ε]ἶναι ϲφαι- facts concerning his (scil. Parmenides’)
_________
4A historical and philosophical relationship between Xenophanes and Parmenides is already
attested by Plato (soph. 242 d 4–7 = DK 21 A 9).
5 Crönert (1906) 127-133, especially 130.
6 On this point, see Cavallo (1983) 31, who places in the same palaeographical group («gruppo
D») P.Herc. 327 and P.Herc. 495, 558, 1508 and 1780, the last being all ascribable to Philodemus’
Ϲύνταξιϲ. See also Cavalieri (2002) 21–23.
7 The correspondences given in Cavalieri (2002) 29 are partially wrong and should be corrected
as follows: fr. 1 Crönert = O 305 fr. 1 = N fr. 1; fr. 2 Crönert = N fr. 3; fr. 3 Crönert = N fr. 2. On
the sheet that contains N fr. 3 (drawn by R. Biondi) we can read: «non esiste l’originale, deve
essere stato distrutto per disegnare il framm. 6». On this and other aspects of the unrolling of
P.Herc. 327, carried out in 1804 by Giuseppe Paderni under the direction of John Hayter, I refer
again to Cavalieri (2002) 19–20.

Angemeldet
Ch. Vassallo, Xenophanes in the Herculaneum Papyri 47
ροειδῆ παρὰ τὰ Ξ]ενοφάνουϲ life. As far as his thought is concerned, on

ἀπέφηνε· Ξενο]φάνηϲ δὲ µ[ᾶλ- the other hand, he (scil. Parmenides) was
5 [λον εἰϲ ἄπειρον ἐρριζῶϲθαι the first to maintain, against the beliefs] of
6 [ἐδόξαζε Xenophanes, that [the Earth] has a spheri-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - cal shape. As a matter of fact, Xenophanes
rather [thought that it (scil. the Earth) sinks
its roots into infinite] (several lines miss-
ing)».8
In the opinion of Crönert the fragment would represent «den Übergang vom
biographischen zum doxographischen Abschnitt» within the section of this work
of Philodemus specifically devoted to Parmenides.9 Such a hypothesis – still in the
opinion of Crönert – would be confirmed by the fact that Diogenes Laërtius also
begins the transition from the biography to the doxography of Parmenides with the
statement that the Eleatic philosopher believed in a spherical Earth and in geocen-
trism.10 On the other hand, the long supplement at ll. 5–6 of the fragment was
justified by Crönert through the two references in Aëtius to Earth as rooted in the
infinite according to the cosmological view of Xenophanes.11 In his opinion, this
evidence was sufficient to enable one to interpret the particle δέ at l. 4 (clearly
readable in the apograph) as introducing a contrast. Apart from the problem of the
boldness of the supplements, the text of Crönert is probably exposed to a very im-
portant objection in terms of doxography and history of philosophy. In fact, if we
read the fragment in relation to the words which seem certain enough in the Nea-
politan disegno (viz. the name of Xenophanes and the reference to the spherical
shape of something), we cannot forget the testimonium of Diogenes Laërtius con-
cerning Xenophanes’ theology:
οὐϲίαν θεοῦ ϲφαιροειδῆ, µηδὲν ὅµοιον ἔχουϲαν ἀνθρώπῳ· ὅλον δὲ ὁρᾶν καὶ ὅλον
ἀκούειν, µὴ µέντοι ἀναπνεῖν· ϲύµπαντά τε εἶναι νοῦν καὶ φρόνηϲιν καὶ ἀΐδιον.12
_________
8 The translation is mine.
9 Crönert (1906) 129.
10 D.L. IX 21 Dorandi (= DK 28 A 1): πρῶτοϲ δὲ οὗτοϲ τὴν γῆν ἀπέφαινε ϲφαιροειδῆ καὶ ἐν
µέϲῳ κεῖϲθαι. The related problem of geocentrism and that of Earth’s µονή are specifically dealt
with in Epicurus’ Περὶ φύϲεωϲ, though without reference to Xenophanes or other Presocratics. On
this point, see Barigazzi (1950).
11 Aët. III 9, 4 (DG, p. 376); III 11, 1–2 (DG, p. 377) = DK 21 A 47. See also Aristot., de coel.
Β 13, 294 a 21; Simpl., in Coel., l.c. (p. 522, 7 Heiberg); Cic., acad. pr. II 39, 122.
12 D.L. IX 19 (= DK 21 A 1). See also Cic., acad. pr. II 118 (= DK 21 A 34): unum esse omnia
neque id esse mutabile et id esse deum neque natum umquam et sempiternum, conglobata figura.
On this passage, which Diels already associated with Cic., ND I 11, 28, see Untersteiner (2008)
CXCI and nn. 90–91; 70 n., who stresses its Theophrastean roots. For the relationship between
Theophrastus and the doxography on Xenophanes, cf. McDiarmid (1953) 115–120 and above all
Mansfeld (1987). For the general problem of Xenophanes’ theology, besides the introduction of
Untersteiner (2008) CLXVIII–CCXII, see Jaeger (1961) 67–94; Calogero (1977); Mansfeld
(1988); Cerri (2001); Lanza (2005); Schirren (2013) 343–358.

Angemeldet
«The substance of God is spherical, in no way resembling man. He is all eye

and all ear, but does not breathe; he is the totality of mind and thought, and is
eternal».13
Thus it seems reasonable to suppose that at least fr. 2 Crönert of P.Herc. 327
belongs to the section of Philodemus’ Ϲύνταξιϲ specifically devoted to Xenopha-
nes.14 In that case it would be more logical to think that an explicit reference to the
essence of God (οὐϲία θεοῦ) rather then to the essence of Earth (οὐϲία γῆϲ) fell in
the gap in l. 2 of the fragment.
With that clarified, a treatment of the problem of the traces of Xenophanes in
P.Herc. 327 cannot disregard frs. 1 and 4, although in this case Xenophanes’
name does not appear. I will deal with fr. 4 later in relation to Xenophanes’
criticism of traditional theology, which seems to be mentioned in fr. 23 Janko of
book 4 of Philodemus’ On Poems (P.Herc. 207). Fr. 1 of P.Herc. 327, on the
other hand, is interesting because it may give a reference to the bibliographical
production of Xenophanes. For this fragment too, then, I will give a diplomatic
transcription of the disegni (in this case we have the Oxonian apograph as well)
followed by my critical edition.
P.Herc. 327, O 305 fr. 1 = N fr. 1: Diplomatic transcription

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -]µονευειν[    ₍ ₎ 1 N: ]µονευ ιν[ (ε, ϲ) O 2 ]ηϲγεγονε[ N: ] ηϲγεγεν[
- - -] ηϲγεγονε[   ₍ ₎ dext. sup. vest. O 3 N: ] ηµοκριτο[ dext. inf. vest. O
- - -]δηµοκριτοϲ[   ₍ ₎ 4 O: ]ωεντοιϲ[ ₍ ₎]λλοιϲ N 5 O: ]αµιδην[ N
- - -]ωεντοιϲϲιλλοιϲ 6 ]ϲ υδον⸌ον⸍τα [ desc., inf. vert. O: ]λυδον⸌ον⸍τα[ N
5 - - -]αµιδηµ[    ₍ ₎ 7 ON 8 N: ]λευ[ O
- - -]ϲλυδον⸌ον⸍τα [  ₍ ₎
- - -]ταιϲονκαι[   ₍ ₎
8 - - -]ιλευ[   
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Philod., [hist. philos.], P.Herc. 327, fr. 1 Vassallo (= Tim., sill., F 67 Di Marco)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - «(several lines missing) [he (?) is said] to command
- - - ἡγε]µονεύειν [    ₍ ₎ (several words missing) was (?) (several words
- - -] ηϲ γεγονε[   ₍ ₎ missing) Democritus (several words missing) in the
- - -] Δηµόκριτοϲ [   ₍ ₎ Silloi (several words missing) [that] he came from
- - -]ω ἐν τοῖϲ Ϲίλλοιϲ Lydia (several words missing) for being [possible?]
5 - - -]αµιδηµ[    ₍ ₎ also (several words missing) [to dominate?] (seve-
- - -]ϲ Λυδὸν ὄντα [  ₍ ₎ ral lines missing)».15
- - -]ταιϲ, ὃν καὶ [   ₍ ₎
8 - - -]ιλευ[   
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_________
13
Translation by R.D. Hicks.
14 This
section probably preceded the Parmenidean one, but still belonged to the chapter of the
Ϲύνταξιϲ devoted to the Eleatic school. In fact we have no reason to believe that Philodemus does
not follow the tradition that made Parmenides a pupil of Xenophanes (see D.L. IX 21 = DK 21
A 2).

Angemeldet
1 suppl. Crönert 2 γεγονέ[ναι suppleverim e.g. 8 βαϲ]ιλεύ[ειν suppleverim e.g.: βαϲ]ιλευ-

Crönert
In this fragment the name of Democritus, which appears at l. 3,16 is unlikely to

be connected with the few other words that can be restored on the basis of the
disegni.17 But, as I mentioned above, in this case too there could be a reference to
Xenophanes if the Silloi quoted at l. 4 are his work of that name.18 If so, both the
reference to this work of Xenophanes and the presence of Democritus suggest that
we could consider the fragment, numbered by the apographs O and N as the first
of the series of P.Herc. 327, as belonging to the section of Philodemus’ Ϲύνταξιϲ
which follows that devoted to the supposed ‘father’ of Eleatism. Nevertheless, it
would be more appropriate to think that the Silloi quoted in this Herculanean
source were the work of the Pyrrhonian philosopher Timon of Phlius. But that
does not mean that Xenophanes was not involved. In fact, Diogenes Laërtius
maintains that Timon’s Silloi consisted of three books. Through them Timon, in
accordance with his sceptical bent, gave a parody of all the dogmatic philoso-
phers. The first book took the form of a first-person narrative, while the second
and third had a dialogue structure. In this dialogue Timon would have questioned
Xenophanes about each of the philosophers of the past (the most ancient ones in
the second book, and the most recent ones in the third book, also called the
Epilogue).19 This choice was evidently justified by the strong ideological break
represented by Xenophanes in comparison with the Greek cultural tradition. Both
Diogenes Laërtius and Sextus Empiricus say that Timon praised Xenophanes’
harsh criticism of the lies of Homer.20 Then Sextus Empiricus, to confirm this
praise, adds that the Silloi were actually a work entirely devoted to Xenophanes,
_________
16 According to Cavalieri (2002) 30, we cannot rule out the reappearance of the name at l. 5.
But the three letters (ΑΜΙ) which in that case would precede the beginning of the name of Demo-
critus (ΔΗΜ) do not seem to me to give a plausible word-end.
17 Cf. Crönert (1906) 129: «Δηµόκριτο[ϲ, | ὥϲ φηϲι Τίµων] ἐν τοῖϲ Ϲίλλοιϲ hilft nicht weiter,
auch zu Λυδὸν ὄντα und βαϲ]ιλεύ[ειν, das doch unter sich zusammenhängt, weiß ich keine Bezie-
hung».
18 This hypothesis was already advanced by Crönert: cf. the previous note. If so, as Di Marco
(1989) 269 notes, we would have evidence for the Ϲίλλοι (as the title of Xenophanes’ satirical
work) earlier than that in P.Oxy. 1087, col. II 40-41 (= Mertens-Pack3 1186; LDAB 2264): τὸ
Ἔ̣ρυ|κ̣οϲ παρὰ Ξεν̣[ο]φ̣ά̣ν̣ει ἐν ε´ Ϲίλλων (CPF I.1***, 107, 1T, pp. 876-878 Manetti-Montanari =
Schol. in Il., II, p. 224 Erbse). In general, on the Silloi of Xenophanes, see Untersteiner (2008)
CCXXXVII–CCLVI and 128–137; Di Marco (1989) 17–56.
19 Tim., sill., T 1 Di Marco (= D.L. IX 111–112). See Untersteiner (2008) 2–3 n.; Nestle
(1937) 1302; Dal Pra (1950) 56–59; Di Marco (1989) 22, who defines the Laërtian passage as
«una vera e propria hypothesis che con certezza risale al commento al poema scritto da Apollonide
di Nicea. (…) Come vide per primo Meineke, il résumé di Apollonide autorizza a credere che nei
Silli si descrivesse una catabasi all’Ade: è solo nel regno dei morti, infatti, che possiamo imma-
ginare Timone a colloquio con Senofane, vissuto molte generazioni addietro».
20 Tim., sill., F 60 Di Marco (= Sext., PH I 224 = DK 21 A 35; D.L. IX 18 = DK 21 A 1):
Ξεινοφάνηϲ ὑπάτυφοϲ, Ὁµηραπάτηϲ ἐπικόπτηϲ / † ἔα τὸν ἀπάνθρωπον θεὸν ἐπλάϲατ’ ἶϲον ἁπάν-
τῃ, / ἀϲκηθῆ ‹ ˘ ˘ ˉ › νοερώτερον ἠὲ νόηµα. See Di Marco (1989) 255–259.

Angemeldet
making it clear that Timon there described him as a forerunner of ancient scepti-
cism, although he was not a wise man like Pyrrho.21 In conclusion, fr. 1 of P.Herc.
327 could also evoke a part of Timon’s work in which Xenophanes was intro-
duced in order to criticize Democritus’ position in relation to some specific
aspects of his thought.
The other traces of Xenophanes’ philosophy in the Herculaneum papyri have
chiefly a theological content. With regard to this aspect, the most interesting text
is certainly fr. 12 of P.Herc. 1428, the best preserved roll among those ascribed to
Philodemus’ On Piety.22 The edition of the fragment by Adolf Schober in 1923,
published in «Cronache Ercolanesi» only in 1988,23 has long stood in need of re-
vision. Autopsy of the original manuscript with the aid of modern binocular
microscopes, together with my transcription of the papyrus and with the help of
the multispectral images, makes it possible now to improve the text considerably
and above all to avoid some rash conclusions reached on the basis of imaginary
readings or improbable supplements. I present now a diplomatic transcription of
the fragment collating my transcription with the Neapolitan disegno and taking
into account the stratigraphical state of the papyrus (in particular the presence of
some microsovrapposti and one microsottoposto, which do not obstruct too much
the textual reconstruction of the fragment). My edition and some considerations
relating to its significance for the history of philosophy are given below.24
P.Herc. 1428, cr. 2, fr. 12 = N fr. 12: Diplomatic transcription

desunt versus fere 23
24 ][ 24 ][ subter lineam vert., med. vest.
25 ][][ 25 ][][ sin. asc. sicut λ, α, inf. vest.
][]κ[ 26 ][]κ[ inf. vest., inf. vest., inf.
₍₎]ν̣ε̣⌈ι⌉ν[ apex 27 ⌈ι⌉ N:  sup. vest. P ν[
₍₎]ειϲθαιτ[]ο̣ν̣ (µ, κ, ν) 29 ω̣αλ[ (ν, αι, λι, δι), (λ,
]τ̣ω̣αλ[₍₎]ν̣ε α, χ) ν̣ε (λ, χ, α) 30 ]ι̣ (τ, γ, π, ξ,
30 ₍₎]ι̣ϲηπεριεµ̣η ζ) ιεµ̣ sup. vest., inf. vest, dext.
]αυταϲαθ̣ε̣ιϲ sup. uncus 31 ]αυταϲαθ̣ med.
]ταϲ⌈δο⌉ξϲ̣µ̣ vest., inf. vest., sup. vert. cum med.
β̣β̣ηκενγινωϲκειν horiz. coniuncta 32 ⌈δο⌉ N:  (δ, λ,
_________
21 Tim.,sill., F 59 Di Marco (= Sext., PH I 223 = DK 21 A 35): ὡϲ καὶ ἐγὼν ὄφελον πυκινοῦ
νόου ἀντιβολῆϲαι / ἀµφοτερόβλεπτοϲ. δολίῃ δ’ ὁδῷ ἐξαπατήθην / πρεϲβυγενὴϲ τότ’ ἐὼν καὶ ἀµεν-
θήριϲτοϲ ἁπάϲηϲ / ϲκεπτοϲύνηϲ· ὅππῃ γὰρ ἐµὸν νόον εἰρύϲαιµι / εἰϲ ἓν ταὐτό τε πᾶν ἀνελύετο· πᾶν
δέ οἱ αἰεὶ / πάντῃ ἀνελκόµενον µίαν εἰϲ φύϲιϲ ἵϲταθ’ ὁµοίην. See Dal Pra (1950) 62; Steinmetz
(1966a) 35–37; Di Marco (1989) 247–254.
22 On the papyri related to this Philodemean work, see Cavallo (1983) 34–35, 37, 51, 53, 64;
Dorandi (1988a); Dorandi (1988b); Obbink (1996) 37–62.
23 Schober (1988) 113. See Gigante (1988).
24 I had the opportunity to present my critical edition of this fragment during the 27th Interna-
tional Congress of Papyrology of Warsaw. See now Ch. Vassallo, Towards a Comprehensive
Edition of the Evidence for Presocratic Philosophy in the Herculaneum Papyri, in: T. Derda (ed.),
Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Papyrology («JJP» Suppl.), Taubenschlag
Foundation, Warsaw, in press.

Angemeldet
 α), (ο, ϲ) P ξϲ̣µ̣ (α, δ), inf. vest.,

34 παρµενειδηϲδε sup. vest. 33 β̣β̣ inf. vest.
Philod., piet. (pars altera), P.Herc. 1428, fr. 12 Vassallo

24 ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ «(c. 25 lines and 2–3 words missing) and it
25 ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ turns out that [he (scil. Xenophanes)
̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣ κα̣[ὶ πάν- thought] that God [on the one hand] moves
τα κει]νεῖν µ̣[ηδαµῶϲ the Universe, but on the other hand is not
δὲ κειν]εῖϲθαι τ[ὸν θε]όν, moved in any way, and [it turns out] that if
εἰ περὶ] τῶν̣ ἄλλ̣[ω]ν λ̣έ- someone argues about the other things
30 γει] τ̣ιϲ ἢ περὶ ̣θ̣εο̣ῦ̣, µη- (scil. about the other facts/phenomena) or
δὲν] τ̣αύταϲ ἀλ̣η̣θεῖϲ about God, he did not recognize/perceive
οὔϲαϲ] τὰϲ δόξα̣ϲ̣ ϲυ̣µ- these opinions as truth. Then Parmenides
βέ̣βηκεν γινώϲκειν. (continue on)».25

34 Παρµενείδηϲ δέ
26–28 κα[ί supplevi, cetera Sedley per litteras: µήτε || κει]νεῖν µ̣[ηδὲν µήτε | κειν]εῖϲθαι τ[ὸν θε|όν
Philippson: µή||τε κει]νεῖν µ[ηδὲν µή|τε κειν]εῖϲθαι τ[ὸν | θεόν Schober: µ[ήτ’ ἄλλο|ϲε κει]νεῖν
Janko per litteras: τὸν] κ[ό]ϲµ[ον |κει]νεῖν, κτλ. Hammerstaedt privatim e.g. (cf. DK 21 A 31
= Simpl., in Phys. 22, 22 sqq.: οὔτε κινούµενον οὔτε ἠρεµοῦν, A 35 = [Galen.], hist. phil. 7 = DG,
p. 604, 17: ἀµετάβλητον, B 25 = Simpl., in Phys. 23, 10: ἀλλ’ ἀπάνευθε πόνοιο νόου φρενὶ πάντα
κραδαίνει, B 26 = Simpl., in Phys. 23, 10: αἰεὶ δ’ ἐν ταὐτῷ µίµνει κινούµενοϲ οὐδέν / οὐδὲ
µετέρχεϲθαί µιν ἐπιπρέπει ἄλλοτε ἄλλῃ) 28 fin. τ[ὸν θε]όν supplevi: τ[ὸν αὐτ]όν Hammer-
staedt privatim dubit. 29 εἰ περί] supplevi (εἰ] Hammerstaedt privatim) ἄλλ̣[ω]ν supplevi
29–30 λ̣έ|[γει suppll. Hammerstaedt et Rashed privatim 30 θ̣εο̣ῦ̣ legi dubit. 30–33 cf. DK
21 B 34 = Sext., adv. math. VII 49, 110; Plut., aud. poet. 2, 17 e 30–31 µη|[δέν] supplevi:
µηδέ] Philippson 32 οὔϲαϲ] supplevi: λέγων] Philippson 34 cf. Bücheler (1865) 529
There is no doubt that we have here a Presocratic testimonium. The diple

obelismene placed under l. 33 indicates the transition from a doxographical sec-
tion to another, in this case to the section specifically devoted to Parmenides,
whose name is clearly readable at the end of the column (l. 34). The lines
immediately before the diple certainly refer to Xenophanes. This is demonstrated
by, among other things, the stylistic similarity of the Herculanean text to a parallel
passage of book 1 of Cicero’s On the Nature of the Gods. I will came back to this
point shortly. For the moment I will concentrate on the theological and epis-
temological problems that the fragment seems to raise. Robert Philippson, less
prudent than Schober with regard to the supplements, considered the last lines of
the fragment as a clear «Anspielung auf die vermeintliche Skepsis des Xeno-
phanes».26 He was evidently inclined to divide it into two sections, with theo-
_________
25
The translation is mine.
26Philippson (1920) 367. In general, on Xenophanes’ epistemology, see Untersteiner (2008)
CCXIII–CCXXXVI, especially XXX; Schirren (2013) 362–367. For the specific problem of the
so-called ‘scepticism’ of Xenophanes, above all in relation to fr. 34 D.-K. (on which, infra), see

Angemeldet
logical and epistemological content respectively. But his reading τὸ] µ̣ηδ̣ὲν
γινώϲκειν not only fails to explain what kind of things Xenophanes’ scepticism
referred to, but above all it cannot now stand up to the evidence of the original
manuscript, which categorically excludes the reading µ̣ηδ̣έν proposed by Philipp-
son and restores instead the perfect ϲυ̣µβέ̣βηκεν at ll. 32–33. Thus we can infer
that the infinitive γινώϲκειν refers still to Xenophanes and not to human know-
ledge in general. At the same time the new reading does not exclude the possi-
bility that the passage has epistemological implications. In fact it strengthens the
hypothesis according to which the fragment is evidence for Xenophanes as a
sceptic philosopher. This is very important both for the history of ancient philo-
sophy and for Presocratic doxography because the Herculanean evidence comes
many decades before the testimonia of Plutarch and Sextus Empiricus on
Xenophanes’ scepticism.27
In the first lines of the fragment the supplements of Philippson and Schober do
not give a completely certain reference to the qualities of God in Xenophanes’
thought. But parallel passages28 give us good grounds to believe that in this doxo-
graphical section the active and passive immobility of God was at issue. The phi-
losophical connection of such an important theological problem with the second
part of the fragment allows us to formulate a wide range of hypotheses, among
which I would mention at least two. The first considers the second part of fr. 12 as
a proof of Xenophanes’ Eleatism in the view of Philodemus or more generally in
the Epicurean approach to the history of Presocratic philosophy. According to this
approach the image of Xenophanes as a forerunner of the Eleatic school would be
confirmed. In this case the fragment would testify not only to Xenophanes’ gene-
ric scepticism but also to his specific assent to the traditional Eleatic theory of a
strong separation between truth (ἀλήθεια) and opinion (δόξα) and of the conse-
quent inability of the senses to reach the truth.29 If so, the Herculanean fragment
should be compared with two other pieces of evidence: a) first of all, with the
_________
Fränkel (1925) 184–192; Heitsch (1966); Decleva Caizzi (1974); Lesher (1978); Turrini (1982);
Finkelberg (1990) 131–146; Wiesner (1997); Ioli (2003). See also the next note.
27 As far as this problem is concerned, it is worth underlining a further point of contact between
Philodemus and Timon’s Silloi: in fact, as rightly stressed by Di Marco (1989) 38, the judgements
expressed in the Silloi about the Eleatics and Democritus have given «un autorevole avallo alla
successione eleatismo – atomismo – pirronismo (Clem. Alex. strom. 1, 14, 64, 2–4 = Pyrrho T 25
A e Eus. praep. ev. 14, 17, 10 = Pyrrho T 25 B Decleva Caizzi)». So already Long (1978) 78 («the
public recognition of such a tradition, which includes the Eleatics, Democritus and Protagoras,
must have been largely, if not entirely, due to Timon»). For an in-depth survey of the role of this
Herculanean source in the doxography concerning Xenophanes’ scepticism, see Ch. Vassallo,
Senofane e lo scetticismo antico: PHerc. 1428, fr. 12 e il contesto dossografico di DK 21 B 34, in:
V. Gysembergh/A. Schwab (eds.), Philosophie, Sciences exactes et Sciences appliquées dans
l’Antiquité («AKAN-Einzelschriften»), Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Trier, in press.
28 See the passages I refer to in the critical apparatus of my edition.
29 See, for instance, DK 28 B 7–8. A good synthesis concerning the question of the role of the
senses and the relationships between truth and opinion in Parmenides, with a rich and up-to-date
bibliography, is given in Kraus (2013).

Angemeldet
radically sceptical evidence of pseudo-Plutarch (DK 21 A 32), of Theophrastean

origin, which on the one hand indicates in Xenophanes a break with the Milesian
doctrines because of the theory of the homogeneous nature of the whole, but on
the other hand maintains the deceptive nature of the senses and the inadequateness
of human reason for knowledge;30 b) in the second place, with the moderately
sceptical evidence of the Peripatetic Aristocles of Messene (DK 21 A 49), who
confirms that the senses give no access to truth and are useless for knowledge, but
at the same time does not associate reason with this sceptical approach (on the
contrary, in the view of Aristocles the λόγοϲ is the only trustworthy human
faculty).31
Another interpretation sets the supposed scepticism of Xenophanes against its
theological and ontological background. I think this is the best way to understand
the Herculanean evidence, even if it does not involve the διαδοχή Xenophanes/
Parmenides. In this way it seems to me reasonable to consider fr. 12 of P.Herc.
1428 as a unity and above all to associate it with the words of the well-known fr.
34 D.-K., independently of the interpretation of it given by Sextus Empiricus. In
fact in fr. 34 D.-K. Xenophanes says:
καὶ τὸ µὲν οὖν ϲαφὲϲ οὔτιϲ ἀνὴρ ἴδεν οὐδέ τιϲ ἔϲται / εἰδὼϲ ἀµφὶ θεῶν τε καὶ ἅϲϲα
λέγω περὶ πάντων· / εἰ γὰρ καὶ τὰ µάλιϲτα τύχοι τετελεϲµένον εἰπών, / αὐτὸϲ ὅµωϲ
οὐκ οἶδε· δόκοϲ δ’ ἐπὶ πᾶϲι τέτυκται.32
«No man knows, or ever will know, / the truth about the gods and about every-
thing I speak of; / for even if one chanced to say the complete truth, / yet oneself
knows it not; but seeming is wrought over all things [or fancy is wrought in the
case of all men]».33
_________
30 Ps.-Plut., strom. 4 (Eus., PE I 8, 4 = DG, p. 580): (---) ἀποφαίνεται δὲ καὶ τὰϲ αἰϲθήϲειϲ
ψευδεῖϲ καὶ καθόλου ϲὺν αὐταῖϲ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν λόγον διαβάλλει. (---)
31 Aristocl., de philos. 8 (ap. Eus., PE XIV 17, 1): οἴονται γὰρ δεῖν τὰϲ µὲν αἰϲθήϲειϲ καὶ τὰϲ
φανταϲίαϲ καταβάλλειν, αὐτῷ δὲ µόνον τῷ λόγῳ πιϲτεύειν· (---). Among the supporters of this
position, Aristocles joined Xenophanes directly to the Eleatics (Parmenides, Zeno, Melissus), and
included the followers of Stilpo and the Megarians as well. See also Aët. IV 9, 1 (DG,
p. 396). On this point, I refer to Untersteiner (2008) XXXIV–XXXV and nn. 54–55 and 59, who
however does not see any contradiction between καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν λόγον διαβάλλει of A 32 (p. 122,
21) and αὐτῷ δὲ µόνον τῷ λόγῳ πιϲτεύειν of A 49 (p. 126, 7), especially in view of the different
senses of the word λόγοϲ in the two witnesses (ibid., CCXIV).
32 DK 21 B 34 (= Sext., adv. math. VII 49; 110; VIII 326; Plut., aud. poet. 2, 17 e). As far as v.
1 is concerned, the reading ἴδεν of Sextus Empiricus (attested in the itacistic form οἶδεν in the Mss.
N and A) corresponds to the aorist γένετ’ in Plutarch. Sextus’ reading was adopted by Müllach
(1860) I, 103, in his Fragmenta philosophorum graecorum; afterwards his choice was defended by
Fränkel (1925) 185 and Wilamowitz (1926) 280, and then followed among others by
B. Snell and Diels-Kranz, most recently by Kirk/Raven/Schofield and J.H. Lesher. On the other
hand, Untersteiner (2008) CCXX–CCXXII and nn. 22–26; Decleva Caizzi (1974) 160; Dumont
(1988) 122–123; Ioli (2003) 201–204, opt for Plutarch’s reading. An accurate report of the several
readings of fr. 34 D.-K. is given by G. Reale in Zeller/Mondolfo (1967) 149–157 n., and now by
Schirren (2013) 362–367.
33 Translation by G.S. Kirk/J.E. Raven/M. Schofield.

Angemeldet
But the strong connection between theology and epistemology in Xenophanes’

thought can be proved also from another perspective, viz. the relationship between
fr. 12 of P.Herc. 1428 and the famous survey of Presocratic theories in book 1 of
Cicero’s On the Nature of the Gods. In the Doxographi Graeci Hermann Diels,34
even though he did not believe Cicero to depend directly on Philodemus’ treatise
On Piety,35 published that Herculanean fragment in a synoptic arrangement toge-
ther with the words of Velleius about Xenophanes in Cicero’s dialogue:
Tum Xenophanes, qui mente adiuncta omne praeterea, quod esset infinitum, deum
voluit esse, de ipsa mente item reprehendetur ut ceteri, de infinitate autem vehe-
mentius, in qua nihil neque sentiens neque coniunctum potest esse. Nam Parme-
nides etc.36
«Next, Xenophanes endowed the universe with mind, and held that, as being
infinite, it was god. His view of mind is as open to objection as that of the rest; but
on the subject of infinity he incurs still severer criticism, for the infinite can have
no sensation and no contact with anything outside. As for Parmenides, etc.»37
This passage raises many doxographical problems. As Jaap Mansfeld ob-
serves,38 the identification of Xenophanes’ God with a supreme and absolute Intel-
lect (mens) is compatible with the doxographical vulgate and with what we read in
the treatise De Melisso, Xenophane et Gorgia.39 But in On the Nature of the Gods
the philosophical problem is represented instead by the attribute of infinity (infini-
tas), which does not find any echo in the traditional doxography. However, thanks
to Simplicius, we know that in the treatise On Gods of Nicolaus of Damascus, a
Peripatetic philosopher contemporary with Augustus, the principle of Xenophanes
_________
34 Diels(1965) 534.
35Diels (1965) 121–129 thought that both Cicero and Philodemus drew on the treatise Περὶ
θεῶν of the Epicurean Phaedrus. A specific request for Phaedrus’ theological work by Cicero is
attested in Cic., ad Att. XIII 38, 1 and 39, 2, on which see Dyck (2003) 7; Essler (2011) 151. As
regards the other thesis, viz. Cicero’s dependence on Philodemus, see Philippson (1916) 606–608;
Philippson (1939). On this question, see also Steinmetz (1966b) 154; Henrichs (1974) 9,
n. 28; Capasso (1987) 145–146; Gigante (19832) 34; Gigante (1990) 52. As far as the general
problem of the sources of Cicero’s De natura deorum is concerned, with particular reference to
book 1, see Pease (1955–1958) I, 39–45; McKirahan (1996); McKirahan (1997) passim; also Dyck
(2003) 7–11; Essler (2011) 129–151. As regards the relationship between Cicero and Xenophanes,
Lami (1990) appropriately stresses an echo in De officiis (I 128) of Xenophanes’ criticism of
Homer’s and Hesiod’s theology.
36 Cic., ND I 11, 28.
37 Translation by H. Rackham.
38 Mansfeld (1987) 303–304.
39 MXG 3. 977 a 35–39 Apelt (= DK 21 A 28, 6): ἕνα δ’ ὄντα ὅµοιον εἶναι πάντῃ, ὁρῶντα καὶ
ἀκούοντα τάϲ τε ἄλλαϲ αἰϲθήϲειϲ ἔχοντα πάντῃ· εἰ γὰρ µή, κρατεῖν ἂν καὶ κρατεῖϲθαι ὑπ’ ἀλλήλων
τὰ µέρη θεοῦ [ὄντα], ὅπερ ἀδύνατον. See in particular DK 21 B 24 (= Sext., adv. math. IX 144)
and B 25 (= Simpl., in Phys. 23, 19).

Angemeldet
was described as infinite (ἄπειρον), and also as immobile (ἀκίνητον).40 According

to Mansfeld, this information need not depend on the (Epicurean?) source used by
Cicero. Nicolaus of Damascus is clearly influenced by Aristotle’s Metaphysics,
where Parmenides, Melissus and Xenophanes are dealt with together in relation to
the limited or unlimited nature of the One. Therefore he could have presented
Xenophanes in the same way as Melissus is presented in Aristotle (viz. in relation
to the One κατὰ τὴν ὕλην and its consequent boundlessness).41 As far as Cicero is
concerned, things are quite different. In his report concerning Xenophanes two
phenomena can be supposed to be relevant: a) the reception of the doxography
concerning the infinite principle of the Milesians (Anaximander and Anaximenes)
and Anaxagoras’ νοῦϲ; and at the same time, b) the attribution to the supposed
founder of Eleatic school (Xenophanes) of the infinite character which distin-
guishes Melissus’ from Parmenides’ being.42
At this point we can make a further comparison between the fragment of Philo-
demus’ On Piety and the passage of On the Nature of the Gods at issue. In
Cicero’s dialogue Velleius’ criticism of Xenophanes’ theology seems to be foun-
ded on an irremediable epistemological aporia. In the view of Velleius, reducing
God to infinity means in fact denying the beings of the Universe any capacity of
discernment, i.e. depriving them of the use of the senses and of the capacity for
interaction between them, which is the requirement for every (philosophical)
speech on the world. This strict connection between theology and epistemology is
evident, in my opinion, in On Piety as well. But whereas in Cicero that connection
is based on criticism of the notion of an infinite God, in Philodemus it is clearly
built on the concept of a motionless and ordering God. Perhaps this is enough to
exclude theoretically both the dependence of Cicero on Philodemus and the exi-
stence of a single source common to both philosophers.
Philodemus’ vision of the God of Xenophanes is certainly closer to the doxo-
graphical vulgate. At least according to the text which the Herculaneum papyrus
allows us to restore, it falls in a descriptive rather than specifically polemical
passage. On the other hand, as mentioned above, Cicero had to get information
from several sources, in which the theological attributes of some non-Eleatic Pre-
socratics were mixed with those of successive Eleatics (like Melissus). But such a
doxographical overlapping does not prevent us from seeing evident traces of Epi-
curean doxography in Cicero’s report about Xenophanes’ theology. In fact the
_________
40 Simpl., in Phys. 23, 14–16 (= DK 21 A 31). In the same passage Simplicius mentions that
Alexander of Aphrodisias described Xenophanes’ God as limited (πεπεραϲµένον) and spherical
(ϲφαιροειδέϲ) instead.
41 Aristot., metaph. Α 5. 986 b 18–24 Primavesi. In fact Aristotle says that Xenophanes,
although maintaining the unity of the whole, did not give his opinion of the (limited or unlimited)
nature of the causes, but only affirmed that the One is God. But we should not forget that shortly
afterwards Aristotle charges both Melissus and Xenophanes with philosophical roughness.
42 Mansfeld (1987) 301–305 considers this doxographical phenomenon as part of the process of
«Eleatization, or Parmenedeization» of Xenophanes, easily proved by the attribution to Xenopha-
nes’ God of typical characteristics of Parmenides’ being.

Angemeldet
partially Epicurean basis of the fragment of P.Herc. 1428 and of the doxogra-
phical account of On the Nature of the Gods is evident from the sceptical impli-
cations of the God’s features, whether it is infinite (Cicero) or motionless (Philo-
demus).
All this, in my opinion, can be justified also in the light of Epicurus’ strong
criticism of scepticism, which he recognized not only in the philosophy of Plato
but also in that of several Presocratics.43 Among them Xenophanes certainly had
be taken into account, but unfortunately this has not till now been confirmed by
the Herculaneum papyri. Before the most recent studies of P.Herc. 1289, contai-
ning book 2 of Philodemus’ work On Epicurus, Achille Vogliano wrongly
thought that he could restore the dative Ξ̣(ε‹ν›ο)φ[άν]ει in a fragment of this roll.44
Ettore Bignone, basing himself on Vogliano’s edition, considered this Hercula-
nean text a proof of the anti-sceptical polemics of Epicurus in the Letter to the
Philosophers of Mytilene. In fact, in his opinion, the letter was directed against
Presocratics, Academics and Peripatetics with regard to two kinds of problems:
firstly, ethics, and the denial of any role to liberal studies in philosophical edu-
cation; secondly, scepticism, and the criticism of all philosophical trends which
did not consider the senses as criteria of truth. Xenophanes would have been
directly involved into the dispute because of his scepticism, attested to by fr. 34
D.-K.45 The first scholar who threw new light on this topic was David N. Sedley.
_________
43 A list of the Presocratics whom Epicurus criticizes, resorting sometimes to very caustic ex-
pressions, can be found in D.L. X 8. See infra, n. 45 and Vander Waerdt (1989) 234–244.
44 Vogliano (1928) 60 [fr. 6, col. III]: πε]||ρὶ Κυζικηνοῦ τινοϲ ἀϲτρο|λογογ̣[ε]ωµέτρου
παρίϲ|τηιν Ξ̣(ε‹ν›ο)φ[άνε]ι καὶ | τοῖϲ π[ερὶ τ]ὸν Ἰδοµενέ|5α καὶ [Λ]ε̣[ο]ντέα πωρρω|τέρω προβαί-
νουϲι πε|ρὶ [τῆ]ϲ ἀναιρέϲεωϲ τῆϲ | ἀποδ̣[είξεωϲ, καὶ τοὺϲ | λόγουϲ αὐτῶν ὡϲ πο](νη)|10[ρ]οὺϲ
φαί[ν]εται δ(υϲχε)|[ρ]αίνειν. τὸ δ᾽ ἐπ[ὶ] (πᾶν) | [ ̣]υµηϲ[ ̣ ̣ ̣]νου([µ̣]ενου) | [τ]ινοϲ ο[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣](τωι) |
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]το[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ι (ϲυνη).
45 Bignone (2007) 441–444: «È sicuro dunque che la lezione Ciziceni nel testo di Diogene
Laerzio è esattissima ed è una nuova preziosa conferma dell’essere in questa lettera combattuti i
Platonici, per le loro dottrine conducenti, secondo Epicuro, allo scetticismo, sia nella teoria della
conoscenza sia nella dottrina circa la dimostrazione della esistenza degli dèi, dottrina che a
Epicuro importava moltissimo (…). È certo perciò che della Lettera ai filosofi di Mitilene faceva
veramente parte quella polemica contro lo scetticismo (…). (…) come Seneca e lo stesso Filodemo
(…) ricollegano la polemica contro gli scettici con le aporie della scuola eleatica sulla validità del
nostro conoscere, così anche il nuovo testo di Filodemo ricollega la dottrina scettica del platonico
Eudosso con le aporie dell’eleatico Senofane. E come Colote, in questa polemica contro lo
scetticismo, nella quale segue le orme di Epicuro, metteva in rapporto e in dipendenza [Plut. adv.
Col. 1114f] la sua critica contro il primo Aristotele e Teofrasto e gli altri facenti parte del Peripato
platonico, a proposito del flusso e della teoria delle idee, con quella a proposito dello scetticismo
di Parmenide, anche Epicuro in questa lettera connetteva strettamente la dottrina scettica di
Eudosso con quella di Senofane, il maestro di Parmenide». On the basis of Vogliano’s conjecture,
Bignone (ibid., 444, n. 134) saw in the passage of P.Herc. 1289 an unjustifiable connection with
P.Herc. 176: «Quanto a Senofane si noti che egli, appunto per aver dichiarato (fr. 34 D.) che non si
può avere conoscenza sicura intorno agli dèi, e che di tutto si può avere solo “opinione” (δόκοϲ) e
non certezza, era posto dagli antichi fra i primi scettici; (...). Un’altra allusione ai rapporti teoretici
fra la scuola di Cizico e Senofane deve essere in pap. ercolanese epicureo 176 fr. 5 col. XXII 28,
ove si legge νει κυζ. Con grande probabilità dunque Ξενοφά]νει Κυζ[---». See Vogliano (1928) 48

Angemeldet
He restored the name Ἀ]ρ̣κ̣εφῶν̣τ̣ι in place of the imaginary reading Ξ̣(ε‹ν›ο)-

φ[άν]ει of Vogliano. The new text ruled out the possibility that the fragment refers
to the question of Presocratic scepticism.46
On the other hand, a new testimonium concerning Xenophanes brought to light
in the recent edition by Richard Janko of book 4 of Philodemus’ treatise On
Poems47 deserves to be mentioned. This book is transmitted by P.Herc. 207. In
Janko’s opinion, as far as the content is concerned, this roll could be divided into
three sections: a) the first, devoted to arguments not specifically dealt with in the
other books of the work (above all the role of poetry in musical education),
extends from fr. 1 to fr. 10 (the last being devoted in particular to Democritus and
his theory of images); b) the second, from fr. 10 to col. 106, deals with several
themes, among which satyr-plays and µίµηϲιϲ stand out; c) finally, the third would
be devoted to Philodemus’ criticism of Aristotle and a work of his on poetry.48 In
the second section we find a passage which seems to be an excursus on the
conception of gods in Euripides, Xenophanes and Archilochus.
Philod., poëm. 4, P.Herc. 207, fr. 23 Janko

desunt versus 3
4 - - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ινωϲ[- - - «(c. 14 words missing) commonly (?) (c. 4
5 - - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]αι θεο[- - - words missing) and (?) gods (c. 3 words
- - -₍₎ Ἐυρι]π̣ίδου [- - - missing) of Euripides (c. 3 words missing)
- - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] καὶ πα[- - - and likewise (?) (c. 3–4 words missing)
- - - ̣ ̣ Ξε]ν̣οφάν̣[- - - Xenophanes (c. 1–2 words missing) of the
- - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ων µαλ̣[- - - (plural noun missing) rather (?) (c. 2–3
10 - - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ν Ἀρχιλο̣χ̣[- - - words missing) Archilochus (c. 3 words
- - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]τοϲ µη[- - - missing) this (?) (masc. sing. noun missing)
- - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ₍₎ εἰ]ϲαγο[- - - not (c. 4 words missing) introduce (cha-
13 - - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]α̣ρ[- - - racters) (c. 4 words missing). For (?) (c. 14
desunt versus 2 words missing) and (c. 3 words missing) I
16 - - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ν̣αϲ[- - - say, easily (?) (c. 3 words missing) of the
- - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ν καιτ̣[- - - (plural noun and c. 70 words missing to the
- - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]γω ῥα[- - - end of column)».49
- - - ̣ ̣ ̣]τ̣ατων α[- - -
_________
and, for criticism of these false readings and conjectures as regards the history of philosophy,
Gigante (1981) 27–29.
46 Sedley (1976) 27–28: «Arcephon: an associate or member of the Epicurean group of
Lampsacus, also connected with the Cyzicenes (…). Astonishingly, Vogliano misread this name as
Xenophanes, and in consequence the fragment was misinterpreted by Philippson, Bignone and
Liebich as relating to a dispute over theology and scepticism (…), and even found its way into the
appendix to Diels-Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (8th ed., 1956, p. 491)». All this has
been confirmed by the most recent edition of Tepedino Guerra (1994) 43–44: πε]|ρὶ Κυζικηνοῦ
τινοϲ ἀϲτρο|λογογ[ε]ωµέτρου παρίϲ|τηϲιν [Ἀ]ρκ̣εφῶντ̣ι καὶ | τοῖϲ π[ερ]ὶ τὸν Ἰδοµενέ|5α καὶ
[Λ]ε[ο]ντέα πορρω|τέρωι προβαίνου|[ϲ]ι πε|ρὶ [τῆ]ϲ ἀναιρέϲεωϲ τῆϲ | ἀπον̣[ίαϲ --- | ---] ὀ[κ]νη-
|10[ρ]οὺϲ φαίνεται δυϲχε|[ρ]αίνων. τὸ δ’ ἐπ[ὶ] πᾶν | λύµηϲ [ ̣ ̣ ̣]ουµενου | [ ̣ ̣ ̣]ινοϲο[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]τωι.
47 Janko (2011).
48 Janko (2011) 208–221.
49 Translation by R. Janko.

Angemeldet
20 - - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ υϲ[- - -
21 - - - ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]υ[- - -
4 κο]ινῶϲ̣ vel (ἀνα)γ]ινωϲ[κ- vel -]ιν ὡϲ̣ suppl. Janko e.g. 5 κ]αί suppl. Sbordone θεο[ύϲ
Janko e.g.: θεο[ί Sbordone 6 suppl. Janko 7 πα̣[ρα(πληϲίωϲ) suppl. Janko e.g.: πᾶ̣[ϲι
Sbordone 8 Ξε]ν̣οφάν̣[ leg. ac suppl. Janko: Ἀριϲ]τ̣οφά[ν- Hammerstaedt 10 τὸ]ν
Ἀρχίλο̣χ̣[ον suppl. Janko e.g. 11 οὗ]τοϲ vel αὐ]τόϲ suppl. Janko e.g. 12 εἰ]ϲαγο[- leg. ac
suppl. Janko e.g.: ]δὲ τοῖϲ ἀγο[ leg. Hammerstaedt 13 ]α̣ρ[ leg. Janko: ]ρα[ Hammerstaedt
18 λέ]γω vel ἐ]γὼ ῥα[ιδίωϲ suppl. Janko e.g.
The fragment is very probably polemical in nature.50 But it is certainly not easy
to locate such theological polemics within a context of ancient aesthetics and poe-
tic criticism such as that of book 4 of Philodemus’ On Poems. In Janko’s opinion
we can suppose that the Epicurean philosopher here defines the poets as θεολόγοι
because they wrote about the gods.51 This hypothesis is likely. Leaving aside
Archilochus, often quoted by Philodemus,52 the reasons for associating Euripides
with Xenophanes in terms of theology appear clear enough. We know that Xeno-
phanes’ theology was strictly connected to his harsh criticism of the traditional
mythology, in particular that found in Homer and Hesiod. Two fragments of the
Silloi transmitted by Sextus Empiricus demonstrate that.
πάντα θεοῖϲ’ ἀνέθηκαν Ὅµηρόϲ θ’ Ἡϲίοδοϲ τε, / ὅϲϲα παρ’ ἀνθρώποιϲιν ὀνείδεα
καὶ ψόγοϲ ἐϲτίν, / κλέπτειν µοιχεύειν τε καὶ ἀλλήλουϲ ἀπατεύειν.53
«Homer and Hesiod have attributed to the gods / all sorts of things which are
matters of reproach and censure among men: / theft, adultery, and mutual
deceit».54
ὡϲ πλεῖϲτ(α) ἐφθέγξαντο θεῶν ἀθεµίϲτια ἔργα, / κλέπτειν µοιχεύειν τε καὶ ἀλλή-
λουϲ ἀπατεύειν.55
«... as they (scil. Homer and Hesiod) sang of numerous illicit divine deeds: /
theft, adultery, and mutual deceit».56
_________
50Janko (2011) 216: «Frr. 18 and 23–4 clearly come from a rebuttal».
51 Withregard to this, Janko (2011) 258, n. 2, quotes, as an example, Suet., de poët., fr. 1, 51–
52 Rostagni (quidam autem poetae theologi dicti sunt, quoniam de diis carmina faciebant) and
observes that «Suetonius depended on Varro (so Rostagni ad loc., comparing Aug. De civ. dei 18.
14), who in turn could have derived this from Aristotle».
52 On this point, see, among others, the works of De Falco (1922); Nardelli (1983) 147;
Gigante (1993); Hammerstaedt (1997). According to Janko (2011) 259, n. 6, «why Archilochus
appears is unclear. He is not linked with Euripides, and the main connection with the gods that we
find in the testimonia about him is the story that the Pythia condemned the man who killed him
(e.g. Aelian fr. 80 Hercher)».
53 DK 21 B 11 (= Sext., adv. math. IX 193).
54 Translation by J.H. Lesher.
55 DK 21 B 12 (= Sext., adv. math. I 289).
56 Translation by J.H. Lesher.

Angemeldet
In Janko’s opinion,57 the famous vv. 1341–1346 of Euripides’ Heracles could

be considered an imitation of Xenophanes fr. 11 D.-K.:
ἐγὼ δὲ τοὺϲ θεοὺϲ οὔτε λέκτρ’ ἃ µὴ θέµιϲ / ϲτέργειν νοµίζω, δεϲµά τ’ ἐξάπτειν
χεροῖν / οὔτ’ ἠξίωϲα πώποτ’ οὔτε πείϲοµαι, / οὐδ’ ἄλλον ἄλλου δεϲπότην
πεφυκέναι. / δεῖται γὰρ ὁ θεόϲ, εἴπερ ἔϲτ’ ὀρθῶϲ θεόϲ, / οὐδενόϲ· ἀοιδῶν οἵδε
δύϲτηνοι λόγοι.58
«I deem not that the Gods for spousals crave / unhallowed: tales of Gods’
hands manacled / ever I scorned, nor ever will believe, / nor that one God is born
another’s lord. / For God hath need, if God indeed he be, / of naught: these be the
minstrels’ sorry tales».59
In fact, the polemical reference to the poets is a leitmotiv of Euripides’ trage-
dies performed in Athens. The influence of Xenophanes and his criticism of myth
can be seen, for instance, in Bellerophon, where the apparent profession of
atheism is actually a complaint of the protagonist against illogicality and in-
justice,60 and Andromache, where the anti-religious polemics (especially as
directed against Apollo) are concerned with the impossibility of conceiving of a
god as being vengeful like a human being.61 If so, fr. 23 Janko must certainly be
placed in the collection of testimonia concerning Xenophanes’ philosophy, with
particular reference to his criticism of the poetic/mythological representation of
the divinity.62 Obviously, in the philosophical and literary forms adopted by Xeno-
phanes and Euripides, criticism of myth could also bring in the features of impiety
within the social and cultural context in which it was expressed. For this reason, in
_________
57 Janko (2011) 248, n. 2.
58 Eur., Her. 1341–1346.
59 Translation by A.S. Way.
60 See, for instance, TrGF, Eur., Belleroph., fr. 286b, 7: εἰ θεοί τι δρῶϲιν αἰϲχρόν, οὐκ εἰϲὶν
θεοί.
61 Eur., Andr. 1009–1017; 1028–1036; above all 1164–1165 (ἐµνηµόνευϲε δ’, ὥϲπερ ἄνθρω-
ποϲ κακόϲ, / παλαιὰ νείκη· πῶϲ ἂν οὖν εἴη ϲοφόϲ;). Note also the psychological trouble expe-
rienced by Ion and Creusa until its resolution with the appearance of Athena ex machina, in Eur.,
Ion 436–451; 881–922; 1553–1562; 1609–1615. Analogous motives are to be found also in Eur.,
El. 737–746 and 1244–1248; IT 380–391, where moreover some Pindaric influence is evident (see
Pind., Ol. 1, 28 a ff., where, as far as the vicissitudes of Tantalus are concerned, the poet denoun-
ces the δεδαιδαλµένοι ψεύδεϲι ποικίλοιϲ --- µῦθοι). Janko (2011) 258, n. 2, remarks that Athe-
naeus (10, 413 c) draws attention to an imitation of fr. 2 D.-K. of Xenophanes, where the philo-
sopher shows his contempt for the Olympic games, in Euripides’ Autolycus (TrGF, fr. 282): ταῦτ’
εἴληφεν ὁ Εὐριπίδηϲ ἐκ τῶν τοῦ Κολοφωνίου ἐλεγειῶν Ξενοφάνουϲ. On questions of religion in
Euripides, cf. Egli (2003) 121–156; Matthiessen (2004) 54–96; Susanetti (2007) 145–183. For a
comparison with the theological themes of book 2 of Plato’ Republic, see Vassallo (2012) 57–63.
62 In the most recent edition of Lesher (1992) the Herculanean witnesses are not taken into
account at all. This serious lacuna is common to all the existing collections. This doxographical
problem can, I hope, be put right by the collection of the fragments and testimonia of Xenophanes
which Georg Wöhrle is now editing at the University of Trier for the De Gruyter series Traditio
Praesocratica. As far as the polemics of Xenophanes directed against myth (and above all against
the poetical representation of the divinity) are concerned, see, among others, Gemelli Marciano
(2005) and Gostoli (2005).

Angemeldet
my opinion, the list of the Herculanean testimonia to Xenophanes could be exten-

ded to encompass fr. 4 of P.Herc. 327 as well. In this fragment it is possible to
restore the noun ἀϲέβεια, which Crönert, though giving a not very reliable textual
reconstruction, connected with Xenophanes.63 Luckily, besides the Neapolitan
disegno, we have also the original manuscript of this fragment. Combining the
two sources, I give here too the diplomatic transcription and my edition, in which
I try to be more prudent than Crönert.
P.Herc. 327, fr. 4: Diplomatic transcription

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -]˹ιν˺ε̣α˹ν̣˺ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ 1˹ιν˺ N:  inf. vest., inf. vest. P ˹ν̣˺ N: ̣ vert. P
- - -]˹θ˺αι˹τ˺η̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ 2 ˹θ˺ N: ̣ (θ, ο, ω) P ˹τ˺ N: ̣ (τ, γ) P η̣ ̣[ med.
- - -]ϲ̣εβειαν[ ̣ ̣]του vest. 4 µ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ι̣ sup. vest., (ν, η), (ε, θ,
- - -]νπαµ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ι̣ ο, ϲ), (α, λ) 5 ˹ϲι˺ N: [P] ˹ετον˺ N: [P]-1
5 - - -]˹ϲι˺ντο̣θ˹ετον˺[ ̣ ̣ 6 ˹ωτο ̣˺ sin. desc. sicut υ, χ: [P]-1 7 ] ̣η̣
- - -]ν̣πρ˹ωτο ̣˺[ ̣ ̣₍₎ subter lineam vert. sicut φ, ρ, ψ ˹ενουϲ˺
- - -] ̣η̣ϲ̣αµ˹ενουϲ˺[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ -1
N: ̣[ ̣ -2 ̣ inf. vest. P 8 ˹ο˺ sin. sup. arcus
- - -]˹ο˺ι̣ϲλογ̣˹οιϲω˺ν̣ sicut ο, θ ˹οιϲω˺ N: [P]-1
9 - - -]κ̣α̣ι
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Philod., [hist. philos.], P.Herc. 327, fr. 4 Vassallo

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -]ινεαν[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ «(several lines missing) his (scil. of Xeno-
- - -]θαιτη ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ phanes?) impiety (several words missing) [to
- - - ἀ]ϲέβειαν [αὐ]τοῦ be at all] (several words missing) [says (scil.
- - -]νπαµ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ι Xenophanes)] that the divine (several words
5 - - -]ϲιν τὸ θεῖ͙ον [ ̣ ̣ missing) of [the] first (several words missing)
- - -]ν πρώτου̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ we said (several words missing) to/with the
- - - ἐ]φ̣ήϲαµεν ουϲ[ ̣ ̣ speeches of which (several words missing)
- - - τ]οῖϲ λόγοιϲ ὧν and (several lines missing)».64
9 - - -] καὶ
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
1–2 ὃν λέγ]ει Νεάν[θηϲ καὶ ἐκβε|βλῆϲ]θαι τῆϲ̣ [πατρίδοϲ διὰ minime probabiliter suppl. Crönert
3 ἀ]ϲέβειαν [αὐ]τοῦ supplevi (τὴν ἀ]ϲέβειαν αὐτοῦ iam Crönert: ἀ]ϲέβειαν []του[ Cavalieri)
4 πάµπ̣[α]ν̣ ε[ἶν]αι suppleverim e.g. (cf. DK 21 A 36 = Galen., in Hipp. De nat. hom. 25, 25 Kühn):
πανµί[αρον] καὶ vestigiis minime congruenter Crönert: παντουϲιν perperam legit N, quia τ̣ου in
subposito 5 φη]ϲίν vel φα]ϲίν supplere possis: λέγου]ϲιν Crönert 7 supplevi: ]φ̣ηϲαµένουϲ
Crönert 8 suppl. Crönert
The present paper could conclude with the analysis of this last passage. But as
we have previously seen in relation to P.Herc. 1289, an accurate study of the pre-
sence of an author in the Herculaneum papyri can lead both to the discovery of
_________
63 Crönert (1906) 128.

Angemeldet
previously unknown testimonia and, more rarely, to a refutation of earlier sugge-

stions, or to a reconsideration of textual reconstructions not founded on a reliable
study of the originals. For this reason, it seems desirable to underline the need at
least to consider afresh the conclusion of Siegfried Sudhaus that fr. 16 of P.Herc.
1015/832 should be considered as a source for Xenophanes.
Philod., rhet. 8, P.Herc. 1015/832, fr. 16 Sudhaus (I, 275)

- - -]ν ο[ἱ ῥήτ]ορεϲ
διὰ φι]λο[ϲ]οφί[αϲ] ἀ[γ̣]αθοὶ
καϲ ̣ ̣ ̣ακω πολὺ κρείτ-
το[ν̣εϲ τῶν] δοκούντων
5 καὶ τ ̣ ̣νκαιτλειρω ̣
ποθ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣εροιϲ εἰϲ εκαϲτιϲ
̣ ̣ ̣ ̣κ]ρίνοµεν δ’ εἰ ϲυν-
̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ϲ φράζει [δ̣ὲ] τὸν
δεινὸν εἰπεῖν κα[ὶ πα]ρα-
10 τίθετ[α̣]ι τὴν [παρο̣]ῦϲ[αν
προϲα[γ̣γ̣]ελίαν τῆ̣ϲ ̣ λιπ
καταλι ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ϲυ
G: Ξενοφ ̣ ̣ ̣εν ̣ ̣ ̣ϲ ̣ ̣ ||
ωναι[- - - ||
15 µε[- - - ||
ἐµφ[- - - ||
ῥη[τ- - - ||
ϲι[- - - ||
19 (νοφ = Ξενοφ)[- - -
13–19 G (= Apographon Oxoniense Gomperzii); cf. Sudhaus I, 279 app.: «fr. XVI, 13 et 19, ubi de
Xenophane agi videtur»
As far as the papyrological aspects are concerned, a first autopsy of the original
led me to exclude the possibility that the letters ΝΟΦ belong to the original layer
of the roll, because of the large sovrapposto at the end of the column. Conse-
quently, I denied that there could be any trace of Xenophanes there or in Philode-
mus’ treatise On Rhetoric generally.65 But thanks to David Blank,66 who is prepa-
ring a new critical edition of P.Herc. 1015/832 (a Herculaneum roll assigned to
book 8 of that work so far67), I had the opportunity to return to this complex
stratigraphical problem. The provisional edition of the fragment (fr. 16a Blank)
which Blank has kindly showed me saves the sequence ΞΕΝΟΦ at line 14 of the
column and reopens the old debate on the identification of this name: Xenophanes
_________
65That was what I maintained in the paper that I read during the 27th Congress of Papyrology
of Warsaw (see supra, n. 24), but in the forthcoming proceedings I have corrected my old position
in the light of the points set out here.
66 A new critical reconstruction of the final section of the roll was already given by Blank
(2007).
67 Longo Auricchio (1996) 171.

Angemeldet
or Xenophon? As is well-known, on the grounds of Gomperz’s Oxonian apo-

graph, these letters were taken by Sudhaus to belong to the name of the Pre-
socratic, while in the same passage Gomperz suggested an allusion to Xeno-
phon.68 I am sure that a new comprehensive edition of this roll will throw new
light on the words that can actually be restored in the column at issue and above
all on their contextualization in the book of the multi-volume treatise to which
they belong. As far as the content is concerned, I would only observe that it would
be at least difficult to imagine in that context a plausible connection between the
«good rhetoricians for philosophy» (ll. 1–2) and the name of a Presocratic philo-
sopher like Xenophanes.
Bibliography
Barigazzi (1950) = A. Barigazzi, La µονή della Terra nei frammenti ercolanesi del lib. XI
del Περὶ φύϲεωϲ di Epicuro, «SIFC» 24 (1950) 3–19.
Bignone (2007) = E. Bignone, L’Aristotele perduto e la formazione filosofica di Epicuro,
Presentazione di E. Alfieri (2 vols., La Nuova Italia, Florence 19732), Bompiani,
Milan 2007 (repr., single vol.).
Blank (2007) = D.L. Blank, Aristotle’s «Academic Course on Rhetoric» and the End of
Philodemus, On Rhetoric VIII, «CErc» 37 (2007) 5–47.
Bremer/Flashar/Rechenauer (2013) = D. Bremer/H. Flashar/G. Rechenauer (eds.), Früh-
griechische Philosophie, in: F. Überweg (begründet von), Grundriss der Geschichte
der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike, Bd. I/1–2, Schwabe, Basel 2013.
Bugno (2005) = M. Bugno (ed.), Senofane di Elea tra Ionia e Magna Grecia, Luciano Edi-
tore, Naples 2005.
Bücheler (1865) = F. Bücheler, Philodemos Περὶ εὐϲεβείαϲ, «JbClPh» 91 (1865) 513–
541 [= Id., Kleine Schriften, 3 Bde., Teubner, Leipzig/Berlin 1915, I, 580–612].
Calogero (1977) = G. Calogero, Senofane, Eschilo e la prima definizione dell’onni-
potenza di Dio, in: Id., Studi sull’eleatismo, Nuova edizione accresciuta di due
appendici, La Nuova Italia, Florence 1932; 19772, App. I, 315–334.
Capasso (1983) = M. Capasso, Epicureismo e Eraclito. Contributo alla ricostruzione della
critica epicurea alla filosofia presocratica, in: L. Rossetti (ed.), Atti del Symposium
Heracliteum 1981, 2 vols., Edizioni dell’Ateneo, Rome 1983, I, 423–457 [= Capasso
(1987) 59–102].
Capasso (1985) = M. Capasso, Epicureismo ed Eleatismo. Secondo contributo alla ri-
costruzione della critica epicurea alla filosofia presocratica, in: M. Capasso/F. De
Martino/P. Rosati (eds.), Studi di filosofia preplatonica, Premessa di M. Gigante,
Bibliopolis, Naples 1985, 253–309 [= Capasso (1987) 103–163].
Capasso (1987) = M. Capasso, Comunità senza rivolta. Quattro saggi sull’epicureismo,
Premessa di M. Gigante, Bibliopolis, Naples 1987.
Cavalieri (2002) = M.C. Cavalieri, La Rassegna dei filosofi di Filodemo: Scuola eleatica
ed abderita (P.Herc. 327) e Scuola pitagorica (P.Herc. 1508)?, «PapLup» 11 (2002)
17–53.
_________
68 See Janko (2011) 258–259 and n. 4: «To judge by the spacing, Philodemus refers to Xeno-
phon at Rhet. 8 P.Herc. 1015 fr. 16,13 = i. 275 Sudhaus, where Gomperz suggested Ξενοφ[ῶν]
εν[». D. Blank per litteras tells me that even if the state of the papyrus does not allow us to choose
with certainty, he personally considers it more plausible that the name of Xenophon is present
there.

Angemeldet
Cavallo (1983) = G. Cavallo, Libri scritture scribi a Ercolano. Introduzione allo studio dei
materiali greci (I suppl. a «CErc» 13), Macchiaroli, Naples 1983.
Cerri (2001) = G. Cerri, Il frammento Lebedev di Senofane (fr. dub. 47 Gent.-Pr.),
«QUCC» n.s. 69 (2001) 25–34.
Crönert (1906) = W. Crönert, Kolotes und Menedemos («Studien zur Paläographie und
Papyruskunde», 6), Avenarius, Leipzig 1906 (anast. repr. Hakkert, Amsterdam 1965).
Dal Pra (1950) = M. Dal Pra, Lo scetticismo greco, Bocca, Milan 1950.
Decleva Caizzi (1974) = F. Decleva Caizzi, Senofane e il problema della conoscenza,
«RFIC» 102 (1974) 145–164.
De Falco (1922) = V. De Falco, Archiloco nei papiri ercolanesi, «Aegyptus» 3 (1922)
287–290.
Diels (1965) = H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci, collegit recensuit prolegomenis indicibusque
instruxit H. Diels (Reimeri, Berolini 1879) De Gruyter, Berlin 19654 (repr.).
Di Marco (1989) = M. Di Marco, Timone di Fliunte. Silli, Introduzione, edizione critica,
traduzione e commento a cura di M. Di Marco («Testi e commenti», 10), Edizioni
dell’Ateneo, Rome 1989.
Dorandi (1988a) = T. Dorandi, Fragmenta Herculanensia Inedita, «ZPE» 71 (1988)
43–50.
Dorandi (1988b) = T. Dorandi, Una “ri-edizione” antica del Περὶ εὐϲεβείαϲ di Filodemo,
«ZPE» 73 (1988) 25–29.
Dumont (1988) = J.P. Dumont (éd.), Les Présocratiques, Édition établi par J.-P. Dumont,
avec la collaboration de D. Delattre et de J.-M. Poirier («Bibliothèque de la Pléiade»),
Gallimard, Paris 1988.
Dyck (2003) = A.R. Dyck, Cicero. De natura deorum I, ed. by A.R. Dyck («Cambridge
Greek and Latin Classics»), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2003.
Egli (2003) = F. Egli, Euripides im Kontext zeitgenössischer intellektueller Strömungen.
Analyse der Funktion philosophischer Themen in den Tragödien und Fragmenten
(«Beiträge zur Altertumskunde», 189), Saur, München/Leipzig 2003.
Essler (2011) = H. Essler, Cicero’s Use and Abuse of Epicurean Theology, in: J. Fish/
K. Sanders (eds.), Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 2011, 129–151.
Finkelberg (1990) = A. Finkelberg, Studies in Xenophanes, «HSCPh» 93 (1990) 103–
167.
Fränkel (1925) = H. Fränkel, Xenophanesstudien, «Hermes» 60 (1925) 174–192.
Gemelli Marciano (2005) = M.L. Gemelli Marciano, Xenophanes: Antike Interpretation
und kultureller Kontext. Die Kritik an den Dichtern und der sogenannte Monismus, in:
G. Rechenauer (2005) 118–134 [= Bugno (2005) 63–76].
Gigante (1981) = M. Gigante, Scetticismo e Epicureismo. Per l’avviamento di un discorso
storiografico («Elenchos», 4), Bibliopolis, Naples 1981.
Gigante (19832) = M. Gigante, Ricerche filodemee, Macchiaroli, Naples 1969; 19832.
Gigante (1988) = M. Gigante, Prefazione alla stampa della dissertazione di A. Schober
sulla prima parte dell’opera “De pietate” di Filodemo, «CErc» 18 (1988) 65–66.
Gigante (1990) = M. Gigante, Filodemo in Italia, Le Monnier, Florence 1990.
Gigante (1993) = M. Gigante, Filodemo e Archiloco, «CErc» 23 (1993) 5–10.
Gostoli (2005) = A. Gostoli, La critica dei miti tradizionali in Senofane e nella lirica
coeva, in: Bugno (2005) 55–62.
Hammerstaedt (1997) = J. Hammerstaedt, Pausone, Aristofane e Archiloco nel quarto
libro Περὶ ποιηµάτων di Filodemo, «CErc» 27 (1997) 105–120.
Heitsch (1966) = E. Heitsch, Das Wissen des Xenophanes, «RM» n.F. 109 (1966) 193–
235.

Angemeldet
Henrichs (1974) = A. Henrichs, Die Kritik der stoischen Theologie im P.Herc. 1428,
«CErc» 4 (1974) 5–32.
Ioli (2003) = R. Ioli, Senofane B 34 DK e il conoscere, «GIF» 55 (2003) 199–219.
Jaeger (1961) = W. Jaeger, Die Theologie der frühen griechischen Denker (Kohlhammer,
Stuttgart 1953), traduz. it. di E. Pocar, La teologia dei primi pensatori greci («Il
pensiero storico», 45), La Nuova Italia, Florence 1961.
Janko (2011) = R. Janko, Philodemus. On Poems, Books 3 and 4, With the Fragments of
Aristotle, On Poets, Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by R.
Janko, with an unpublished edition by C. Mangoni («The Philodemus Translation
Project – Philodemus: The Aesthetic Works», 1.3), Oxford University Press, Oxford
2011.
Kirk/Raven/Schofield (1983) = G.S. Kirk/J.E. Raven/M. Schofield, The Presocratic Phi-
losophers. A Critical History with a Selection of Texts. Second Edition. Cambridge
University Press, 1983.
Kraus (2013) = M. Kraus, Parmenides, in: Bremer-Flashar-Rechenauer (2013) II, 441–
530.
Lami (1990) = A. Lami, Un’eco senofanea in Cicerone, «SCO» 40 (1990) 437.
Lanza (2005) = D. Lanza, Xenophanes: Eine Theologie?, in: Rechenauer (2005) 102–117.
Lesher (1978) = J.H. Lesher, Xenophanes’ Scepticism, «Phronesis» 23 (1978) 1–21.
Lesher (1992) = J.H. Lesher, Xenophanes of Colophon. Fragments, A Text and Trans-
lation with a Commentary by J.H. Lesher («Phoenix. Presocratics», Supp. 30.4), Uni-
versity of Toronto Press, Toronto/Buffalo/London 1992.
Long (1978) = A.A. Long, Timon of Phlius: Pyrrhonist and Satirist, «PCPhS» n.s. 24
(1978) 68–91.
Longo Auricchio (1996) = F. Longo Auricchio, Nuovi elementi per la ricostruzione della
Retorica di Filodemo, in «CErc» 26 (1996) 169–171.
Mansfeld (1987) = J. Mansfeld, Theophrastus and the Xenophanes Doxography,
«Mnemosyne» 40 (1987) 286–312 [= Mansfeld (1990) 147–173].
Mansfeld (1988) = J. Mansfeld, Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and
the Xenophanes Reception, in: R. van den Broek/T. Baarda/J. Mansfeld (eds.),
Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World («Études Préliminaires aux Religions
Orientales dans l’Empire Romain», 112), Brill, Leiden/New York/København/Köln,
1988, 92–117 [= Mansfeld (1990) 174–199].
Mansfeld (1990) = J. Mansfeld, Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy, Van
Gorcum, Assen/Maastricht 1990.
Matthiessen (2004) = K. Matthiessen, Euripides und sein Jahrhundert («Zetemata», 119),
Beck, München 2004.
McDiarmid (1953) = J.B. McDiarmid, Theophrastus on the Presocratic Causes, «HSCPh»
61 (1953) 85–156.
McKirahan (1996) = R. McKirahan, Epicurean Doxography in Cicero, De natura deorum
Book I, in: G. Giannantoni/M. Gigante (eds.), Epicureismo greco e romano, Atti del
Congresso Internazionale, Napoli, 19–26 maggio 1993 («Elenchos», 25), 3 vols.,
Bibliopolis, Naples 1996, II, 865–878.
McKirahan (1997) = R. McKirahan, Cicero. De natura deorum, Book 1 («Bryn Mawr
Latin Commentaries»), Thomas Library, Bryn Mawr College 1997.
Müllach (1860) = F.W.A. Müllach, Fragmenta philosophorum graecorum, 3 vols., Didot,
Parisiis 1860.
Nardelli (1983) = M.L. Nardelli, Due trattati filodemei Sulla poetica («Ricerche sui Papiri
Ercolanesi», 4), Giannini, Naples 1983.
Nestle (1937) = W. Nestle, Timon (13), RE VI A 2 (1937), coll. 1301–1303.

Angemeldet
Obbink (1996) = D. Obbink, Philodemus. On Piety, Part 1, Critical Text with Com-
mentary, Edited by D. Obbink, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1996.
Pease (1955-1958) = A.S. Pease, Ciceronis De natura deorum, ed. by A.S. Pease, 2 vols.,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1955–1958.
Philippson (1916) = R. Philippson, Zur epikureischen Götterlehre, «Hermes» 51 (1916)
568–608 [= Philippson (1983) 90–130].
Philippson (1920) = R. Philippson, Zu Philodems Schrift über die Frömmigkeit,
«Hermes» 55 (1920) 225–278; 364–372.
Philippson (1939) = R. Philippson, Die Quelle der epikureischen Götterlehre in Ciceros
erstem Buche De natura deorum, «SO» 19 (1939) 15–40 [= Philippson (1983) 249–
274].
Philippson (1983) = R. Philippson, Studien zu Epikur und den Epikureern, im Anschluß
an W. Schmid hrsg. von C.J. Classen, Olms, Hildesheim/Zürich/New York 1983.
Rechenauer (2005) = G. Rechenauer (ed.), Frühgriechisches Denken, Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, Göttingen 2005.
Schirren (2013) = Th. Schirren, Xenophanes, in: Bremer/Flashar/Rechenauer (2013) I,
339–374
Schober (1988) = A. Schober, Philodemi Περὶ εὐϲεβείαϲ libelli partem priorem restituit
A. Schober, Diss. ined. Königsberg 1923 [= Philodemi De pietate Pars prior, «CErc»
18 (1988) 67–125].
Sedley (1976) = D.N. Sedley, Epicurus and the Mathematicians of Cyzicus, «CErc» 6
(1976) 23–54.
Steinmetz (1966a) = P. Steinmetz, Xenophanesstudien, «RhM» n.F. 109 (1966) 13–73.
Steinmetz (1966b) = P. Steinmetz, Eine jungepikureische Sicht der Geschichte der
Philosophie, «AGPh» 48 (1966) 153–162.
Susanetti (2007) = D. Susanetti, Euripide. Fra tragedia, mito e filosofia, Carocci, Rome
2007.
Tepedino Guerra (1994) = A. Tepedino Guerra, L’opera filodemea Su Epicuro (P.Herc.
1232, 1289β), «CErc» 24 (1994) 5–53.
Turrini (1982) = G. Turrini, Il frammento 34 di Senofane e la tradizione dossografica,
«Prometheus» 8 (1982) 117–135.
Untersteiner (2008) = M. Untersteiner, Senofane. Testimonianze e frammenti, Presen-
tazione di G. Reale, Introduzione, traduzione, note e apparati di M. Untersteiner
(«Biblioteca di Studi Superiori», 33 – La Nuova Italia, Florence 1956), Bompiani,
Milan 2008 (repr.).
Vander Waerdt (1989) = P.A. Vander Waerdt, Colotes and the Epicurean Refutation of
Skepticism, «GRBS» 30 (1989) 225–267.
Vassallo (2012) = Ch. Vassallo, Filosofia e ‘sonosfera’ nei libri II e III della Repubblica
di Platone («Supplementi di Lexis», 63), Adolf M. Hakkert, Amsterdam 2012.
Vogliano (1928) = A. Vogliano, Epicuri et Epicureorum Scripta in Herculanensibus Pa-
pyris servata, edidit adnotationibus et indicibus instruxit tabulis exornavit A. Vo-
gliano, Weidmann, Berolini 1928.
Wiesner (1997) = J. Wiesner, Wissen und Skepsis bei Xenophanes, «Hermes» 125 (1997)
17–33.
Wilamowitz (1926) = U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Lesefrüchte, «Hermes» 61
(1926) 277–303.
Zeller/Mondolfo (1967) = E. Zeller/R. Mondolfo, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer
geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Reisland, Leipzig 1892), traduz. it. di R. Mondolfo, La
filosofia dei Greci nel suo sviluppo storico, Part I, I Presocratici; Vol. III, Eleati, a cura
di G. Reale, La Nuova Italia, Florence 1967.

Angemeldet

Xenophanes in The Herculaneum Papyri. PR PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Xenophanes in The Herculaneum Papyri. PR PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Xenophanes in the Herculaneum Papyri

Praesocratica Herculanensia IV*

Christian Vassallo (Rome)

Keywords: cosmology, Eleatism, Xenophanes, Herculaneum papyri, Presocratics, theology

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

P.Herc. 327, N fr. 3: Diplomatic transcription

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

ροειδῆ παρὰ τὰ Ξ]ενοφάνουϲ life. As far as his thought is concerned, on

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

«The substance of God is spherical, in no way resembling man. He is all eye

P.Herc. 327, O 305 fr. 1 = N fr. 1: Diplomatic transcription

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

1 suppl. Crönert 2 γεγονέ[ναι suppleverim e.g. 8 βαϲ]ιλεύ[ειν suppleverim e.g.: βαϲ]ιλευ-

In this fragment the name of Democritus, which appears at l. 3,16 is unlikely to

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

P.Herc. 1428, cr. 2, fr. 12 = N fr. 12: Diplomatic transcription

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

 α), (ο, ϲ) P ξϲ̣µ̣ (α, δ), inf. vest.,

Philod., piet. (pars altera), P.Herc. 1428, fr. 12 Vassallo

There is no doubt that we have here a Presocratic testimonium. The diple

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

radically sceptical evidence of pseudo-Plutarch (DK 21 A 32), of Theophrastean

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

But the strong connection between theology and epistemology in Xenophanes’

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

was described as infinite (ἄπειρον), and also as immobile (ἀκίνητον).40 According

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

He restored the name Ἀ]ρ̣κ̣εφῶν̣τ̣ι in place of the imaginary reading Ξ̣(ε‹ν›ο)-

Philod., poëm. 4, P.Herc. 207, fr. 23 Janko

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

In Janko’s opinion,57 the famous vv. 1341–1346 of Euripides’ Heracles could

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

my opinion, the list of the Herculanean testimonia to Xenophanes could be exten-

P.Herc. 327, fr. 4: Diplomatic transcription

Philod., [hist. philos.], P.Herc. 327, fr. 4 Vassallo

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

previously unknown testimonia and, more rarely, to a refutation of earlier sugge-

Philod., rhet. 8, P.Herc. 1015/832, fr. 16 Sudhaus (I, 275)

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

or Xenophon? As is well-known, on the grounds of Gomperz’s Oxonian apo-

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

You might also like